The blog author is an "LLM enthusiast", at a minimum I'll give them credit for pointing their agent at an interesting set of Wikipedia articles. Maybe a blog platform tied to Markdown format is going to produce similar looking posts.
the cheaper it is made, the more effort can be spent elsewhere
What diference does it make as long as the content is interesting and the tone not grating?
It's possible for a human being to use an LLM but guide it to a well-written piece that's worth consuming.
If the LLM output was indistinguishable from real human text nobody would say anything, because by definition we wouldn’t be able to tell.
>The error was not stupidity, corruption, or ideology, but a structural failure of the threat-detection apparatus to model what the asset actually represented.
The number of times the article goes on complete tangents, introducing new irrelevant names and the general useless level of detail, all in perfect verbose English points to an LLM. So does the upbeat and persuasive style.
If you write that level of detail, use a historian's style and footnotes. Do not use the synthetic LLM voice that is optimized for rhetoric.
Also, the upbeat and persuasive style ... is my style kek, is it me being too pushy or?
> Kimball was right at the level he was reading it, but wrong about which decision he was reading
What the fuck does this sentence mean?
The article points out that nobody made a movie about this guy. That's mostly because a movie about someone who's an expert at building organizations is boring. Nobody ever made a biopic about Charles Wilson, head of defense production at General Motors during WWII, and later US Secretary of Defense. Hyman Rickover, who headed the 1950s effort to build nuclear submarines and warships, only has a low budget 2021 documentary. Malcom McLean, who converted the world to containerized shipping and made low-cost imports possible, never got a movie.
Those three people each changed the world more than any celebrity. They're well known in business history. MBAs study them. There are biographies. But no movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
who invented modern composite solid rockets and was also a collaborator of Aleister Crowley and L. Ron Hubbard.
The Chinese outcome was not nearly so certain even in 1990, half a century after the events in question. The counterfactual that China could not have indigenously achieved this also seems unlikely.
After all, the thesis is that Chinese leaders were so organizationally intelligent that they recognized key players that could implement century-long organizational methodology improvements. Given that they could get that far, it seems unlikely that they could not take the next step: that of recreating/finding a Qian Xuesen within their own country; like we found Oppenheimer.
Overall, this seems like a strategic choice that played off roughly at the risk control level it was aimed at. You cannot judge decisions solely by outcomes.